燃烧的岛群军史学习论坛 - Powered by Discuz! Board

标题: 关于英德战舰开火距离的材料 [打印本页]

作者: brokos 时间: 2008-6-3 00:28 标题: 关于英德战舰开火距离的材料

原始链接

Capital Ships Surface Actions:

Lofoten Islands, 9 April 1940.

4 h+ ?& i/ q) d

3 J. F1 ?/ Z' V. k: N2 o n ]The battle opened at 0337 with the Renown having increased speed to 20 knots after spotting the two German ships. Renown was steaming west of the German's position giving her the advantage of being against the still dark sky while the German ships were silhouetted against the lightening eastern sky in morning nautical twilight. Neither side had the advantage of radar during this engagement.
/ j) Z. U( l1 y9 O" E* t# \. Q# t" Z, C5 f
At 19,000 yards Renown turned to a new course to expose her full broadside. At 0405 the Renown opened fire on the Gneisenau whose crew was uncertain about the identity of the Renown and taking the Scharnhorst by surprise.

, e9 n O$ R$ f: V1 w7 b8 B
可见HMS Renown （声望号战巡）在19000码左右准备射击，实际命中距离当在此左右。在这个时候声望号以侧面对准德军舰，而德军未能察觉，所以实际距离估计是19000码。
+ M( T' c m7 o" `2 u
[ 本帖最后由 brokos 于 2008-6-3 00:57 编辑 ]

作者: hyyy 时间: 2008-6-3 00:38

这个航海测距可能有误差，而且，射击距离和交战距离是两个概念．

作者: brokos 时间: 2008-6-3 00:55 标题: Warspite的神威，对意大利海军，出处同上，最远命中纪录

Calabria / Punta Stilo, 9 July 1940. ( n0 r3 n- w) z1 T# H/ t& ?' P" b
% H5 v% A- \* q% F* n, t
This is the first major fleet action between the British and Italian navies in World War 2. While the battleship engagement portion was minimal, it was also decisive to the outcome.
* e: ^ y) x4 R& d: n
8 N- ?9 }: H# ~9 ^The battleship portion opens at approximately 1530 when the Warspite engaged in a duel with several Italian heavy cruisers, both sides obtaining straddles but no hits.9 {' f' ~. S9 n

: x8 q& q! Q9 y- h1 i: F' d$ o2 yAt 1553 the Warspite sighted the Giulio Cesare at a range of about 26,000 yards and took her under fire. The Italian battleship replied almost simultaneously. Warspite obtained a straddle on her first salvo while the Italians were off by about 1000 yards.
# n! w0 B0 G% V/ y; @0 L
2 A2 P! R* f: ?, OAfter exchanging several salvos, the Warspite obtained a hit at 1559 that penetrated the deck of Giulio Cesare amidships detonating in a boiler room knocking out that boiler along with three more in adjacent boiler rooms. There were 115 casualties and the Giulio Cesare' s speed fell to 18 knots.* R5 Z- x7 C$ g; T2 n
$ s, y! W7 v1 O3 u/ G7 B
The Italians then decided to break off the action and retired under a smoke screen. By 1700 Giulio Cesare had managed to make repairs that brought her speed up to 25 knots ensuring her escape. The other Italian battleship present, Cavor, did not actively engage the British, nor did the two slow British battleships present; Royal Sovereign and Malaya.

' W! q1 r) R1 M- l; l
( J0 n) H- Z- m$ ]
这是英意海军在二战的首次主力舰交战，虽然战列舰交火有限，但是结果却是一边倒的
4 y* r# \! Q2 }) M! J$ y
在15点30分，皇家海军厌战号战列舰与意大利数艘重巡开始交火，均未能命中。 ~1 g' H: Q5 I
15点53分，厌战号在26000码距离外发现意大利的古里奥凯撒号战列舰并开火，意方几乎同时反击。第一轮齐射英方几乎命中意方，而意方的齐射则离英方还有1000码。几轮齐射后，15点59分，厌战命中古里奥凯撒号，击穿甲板并引发多个锅炉间爆炸。死亡115人，航速降为18节...
9 n6 l( f$ R0 K }7 C
[ 本帖最后由 brokos 于 2008-6-3 11:15 编辑 ]

作者: brokos 时间: 2008-6-3 00:57

原帖由 hyyy 于 2008-6-3 00:38 发表
5 }9 ]; |3 [" x! }这个航海测距可能有误差，而且，射击距离和交战距离是两个概念．

: z' m/ v2 A. l8 e& b' e

差距当然有，不过就不可能是11000多码，差太远了。

作者: hyyy 时间: 2008-6-3 02:00

这个是一定的了,独迷写的中文资料嘛,能写11000就不错了,要是我110码都敢写,反正YY嘛,还就有人信

作者: brokos 时间: 2008-6-3 02:03

原帖由 hyyy 于 2008-6-3 02:00 发表
3 _8 D! q+ ~$ o. A" H8 C这个是一定的了,独迷写的中文资料嘛,能写11000就不错了,要是我110码都敢写,反正YY嘛,还就有人信

+ W) V$ c# a. B' |3 M

110码不成了肉搏
110码以内先用投石机砸，用弓箭射，然后用板子登陆敌舰

作者: brokos 时间: 2008-6-3 02:15 标题: 约克公爵击破沙霍斯特

North Cape 25 - 26 December 1944. While the primary interest in this battle is damage inflicted by the two battleships involved, a discussion of the entire action is included for completeness. This action between the British battleship Duke of York (along with a number of other Royal Navy cruisers and destroyers) and the German battlecruiser Scharnhorst took place off northern Norway on 26 December 1944.+ J6 J. B; K; K

This entire battle took place in poor weather, rough seas, and near or total darkness. At this time of year there was virtually no actual daylight that far north with just nautical twilight occurring.
3 h# p- o' b: U0 h3 u: Z7 P
The first encounter between Scharnhorst and the British fleet occurred when contact was made by the 10th Cruiser Squadron (Sheffield, Belfast, and Norfolk) by radar at 0840 at a range of about 35,000 yards. While the Scharnhorst also had radar, her crew failed to detect the presence of the British cruisers. The British began to close with the German ship and at 0924 the Belfast began the action by illuminating Scharnhorst with star shell. The Scharnhorst, taken by surprise began to alter course and work up to 30 knots to avoid combat.$ E. r2 K# ], Q7 i4 j, ?/ `

At 0929 the cruiser Norfolk opened fire on Scharnhorst at a range of 9,800 yards. Between 0929 and 0940 when Scharnhorst was lost having opened the range, Norfolk scored two hits on the battlecruiser. The first struck between port 5.9" turret III and the torpedo tubes. This shell did not detonate and wrecked a couple of spaces above the armored deck starting a small fire that was quickly extinguished. The second hit was on the foretop. This hit damaged the Seetakt radar beyond repair. This left Scharnhorst with only a Seetakt aft for surface search. The problem with this is that the remaining radar had a limited forward search arc so with respect to radar, Scharnhorst was essentially blind.

At 1205 the British cruisers regained contact with Belfast making a radar plot at 30,500 yards. Sixteen minutes later with the range down to 11,000 yards and all three British cruisers opened fire and illuminated the Scharnhorst with star shell. The Germans were not completely surprised this time and Scharnhorst quickly replied.
2 _, w( R$ P: G2 U/ a- T5 P
While the British failed to get any additional hits, at 1233 Scharnhorst hit the Norfolk with either her 4th or 5th salvo of 11" shells. Norfolk took one hit on X turret knocking it out and requiring flooding of its magazines and another amidships that did minor damage. Damage was sufficient to knock out all but one Type 285 radar as well. The Sheffield also had splinter damage from near misses.
; ]% ?4 _. K- U
At 1241 the British broke off the action and continued to shadow the Scharnhorst. At 1345 the decision was made by the Germans to discontinue their action and return to port. The Scharnhorst now began to run at high speed back towards port.

At 1617 a second British force, centered around the battleship Duke of York made radar contact on Scharnhorst at a range of 45,000 yards. Once again, Scharnhorst did not make a reciprocal detection. This new British group continued to close on the starboard side of Scharnhorst. At 1632 the Duke of York obtained a radar fire control solution at a range of 29,700 yards.

作者: kevin_hx 时间: 2008-6-3 08:36

看了半天，再联系昨天那个帖子，终于明白了，
原来是在争论英德舰的开火距离是超过20000码的吧？

作者: luckpanzer 时间: 2008-6-3 08:41

昨天的问题是老兔提出英国人实际射击距离没那么远，就引用了一篇文章的资料，可牛牛认为那东西根本就是yy。

作者: brokos 时间: 2008-6-3 11:14

原帖由 kevin_hx 于 2008-6-3 08:36 发表
# l# R q* b8 j7 X6 g7 v; M/ E看了半天，再联系昨天那个帖子，终于明白了，
/ q- A- B8 F6 Q3 \# y; Z原来是在争论英德舰的开火距离是超过20000码的吧？

不是，那篇雷达的帖子讲的是英国火控雷达牛，所以最远命中纪录都是英国创下的。
5 x; s9 {3 v, ^$ g0 i
所以我去找资料核实具体的命中距离。
2 q7 u3 t+ ]# R, b
结果和那篇雷达的文章有出入，但是比起老兔同志的yy文还是更接近

作者: hyyy 时间: 2008-6-3 12:38

你那篇文章是某作者在斯湾文章的基础上改动过了的,至于作者是谁,我就不知道了.........

作者: hyyy 时间: 2008-6-3 13:51

随便吧,牛人,我不说了,那资料已经YY的不行了,也就你信,实际的情况是,
英国人在3:37分就发现了德国人,德国人还啥都不知道,4点05分英国人开炮,距离19000玛(可能有测距误差,但也很接近小编写的距离了),4点17分第一次命中了,格舰被击中主炮火控系统,功能丧失,转用备份,这期间的战果完全是雷达引导取得,而且德舰在4:11分虽然有反击,但一弹没中.
再看国内的资料就变成了,4月9日晨4时30分，在卢夫腾岛（Lofoten Islands）西南海域航行的格诺森瑙号装备的雷达探测到有不明舰只靠近,5时左右，沙恩霍斯特号上的水兵发现远处有火炮射击产生的闪光$ ]4 C1 ~ y3 s0 a* m
原来5时左右等于4时5分,我真是开眼了..................

作者: luckpanzer 时间: 2008-6-3 13:58

德国人的反击请注意距离

作者: brokos 时间: 2008-6-3 18:09

原帖由 hyyy 于 2008-6-3 12:38 发表
! e* Y7 W& a4 s你那篇文章是某作者在斯湾文章的基础上改动过了的,至于作者是谁,我就不知道了.........

http://www.rnepoch.com/battle/story/25revssg/revssg.htm9 c' G. ~' ~, p1 B- a; {. \. }

斯湾上的材料也是大致如此

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-8 17:19

声望真正的命中距离如果是19000,那美国人就直接引进284算了,还自己研发什么?

作者: hyyy 时间: 2008-10-8 17:25

E文资料摆在那里了,楼上可以自己看嘛,如果不同意19000的距离,你可以拿出证据来,大家讨论,中文的就算了,我觉得19000的距离和实际距离应该差距不大了

作者: oldcat 时间: 2008-10-8 17:33

雷达？, `- p; l! [4 {5 L! Q% k) |1 Y
射击引导？
. ^2 J# ^' f6 [# r7 ^

别梦了
英国人那两次都是拿“光学仪器”指挥火炮打出来的

作者: nekey 时间: 2008-10-8 19:31

关于YY我建议大家可以去看下《请叫我威廉三世》，那上面写的才叫NB，对方还没有发现德国舰艇就被击沉了，NB死了！！

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-8 20:04

19000码开火的结果是双方乱打一通，无一命中，最后停火。绝对不是什么15分钟后被弹.7 ^2 X7 P* ]& L$ j. |( x
取得命中的是比较长的时间后的第二次接触，距离很近，说11000码并没有错。而此时沙舰雷达失灵，找不到对象，格舰与声望炮战，各自被对方命中2发。只是德国人运气差得多，一发切断了前设计指挥平台的线路，一发被打到炮塔后的测距仪卡死了一个炮塔。* h) c; j1 n7 i
鉴于战况不利，德军高速撤退，结果大浪还损毁了船体，其间沙舰A炮塔还进了水，轮机也坏了一个，总之是狼狈不堪。! g4 o2 X8 x |' u' U
: j) J2 C( e* j/ @4 p2 O; q
这个出处也是英文的。如果英国人的284雷达+光学测距仪能在能见度极差且海况极为恶劣的情况下在凌晨4点（那时候太阳升起了没有也不知道）19000码取得命中，这表现也太大能了。
$ Q8 P1 ~1 x% m% [4 ]1 r
[ 本帖最后由 Surcouf 于 2008-10-9 08:33 编辑 ]

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-8 20:06

原帖由 oldcat 于 2008-10-8 17:33 发表 # v+ u0 `7 U% ^" a, O: m6 |
雷达？
/ E+ M* j! _9 O8 z射击引导？& R, G. n+ e* T0 `: J, }7 W
* P$ |" ^9 R& a5 h. F

5 _+ `0 c: r8 U5 K5 e& H别梦了
. d/ f9 b9 r) z! |( M, \英国人那两次都是拿“光学仪器”指挥火炮打出来的

+ ]) T$ w& Z* C9 v
英国的火控方式是雷达+测距仪同时进行- `" u1 E8 n* k7 S/ ?3 K5 y0 M/ x7 y
如果没雷达，声望连目标都找不到。19000码的第一次开火估计是雷达完全指引的，因为测距仪在这种情况下实在难以有效工作。

作者: oldcat 时间: 2008-10-8 20:13

原帖由 Surcouf 于 2008-10-8 20:06 发表 9 W0 a# l. H% C% u b1 D3 q

7 p; {: p, x. u8 ^英国的火控方式是雷达+测距仪同时进行
* g& p* }% n8 T: A. T如果没雷达，声望连目标都找不到。19000码的第一次开火估计是雷达完全指引的，因为测距仪在这种情况下实在难以有效工作。

, C1 Y r* K% U I. V3 y, n
" q5 `, `) `) ]: o' n; X0 c
284雷达的有效作用距离刚刚够上19000码
而且184的波束宽度根本就不可能提供火控级别的测量精度

不要忘了地球是圆的
那个月份、挪威这样的高纬度地区是“白夜”

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-8 20:26

呵呵，我想你至少需要了解一点，284型是英国战列舰在战争前期通用的【火控雷达】
法国战列舰黎塞留号更是一直沿用此型雷达直到1951年。
# N# r" P5 k$ b* k2 P6 ^- @& d
根本就不可能提供火控级别的测量精度？
也许精度确实是差一点，可是你要说根本不能，这不是藐视皇家海军的智商么……/ d- X1 w( p8 u! S* L

[ 本帖最后由 Surcouf 于 2008-10-8 20:29 编辑 ]

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-8 20:29

关于雷达的作用，你可以对比同一战斗中的沙恩霍斯特号。* k1 c2 [) J/ o
沙舰的FuMo23一出故障，整个就瞎掉，目标都找不到。可见德舰也是要依仗雷达的。

作者: oldcat 时间: 2008-10-8 20:45

原帖由 Surcouf 于 2008-10-8 20:26 发表
- F5 @7 c4 J( B" a6 _呵呵，我想你至少需要了解一点，284型是英国战列舰在战争前期通用的【火控雷达】' y6 S& ~$ N% \- T6 y7 C. ~
法国战列舰黎塞留号更是一直沿用此型雷达直到1951年。
) Z$ }7 R2 i- [. G" {7 C) L3 h# K7 r c- @6 N. |2 q
根本就不可能提供火控级别的测量精度？
5 {" m5 ]# M# ^6 x+ K# p# ]5 R也许精度确实是差一点，可是你要说 ...

2 g# q4 I% G# p7 b1 j) i& u( Z

284的波束宽度是8度3 {5 h* u( n; J# l/ f, n
这意味着什么？& D  B* m9 B" f' e# V
+ r0 r& y+ c7 Q8 E" z% q  w
意味着对目标的测角可能的偏差高达4度

4度的角误差也算是“火控级别”？  `( f& y$ ]' g% M7 Y, E
! C+ K7 {8 |. ?' n+ m
看来英国人就是比美国人牛5 F, ?& A+ a  k& \! n& r, `& b$ t
9 g$ }5 s" r2 b: g: `/ B9 ?% \, q
美国人的MK8 6度宽的波束都只有有限的火控能力
完整的雷达引导主炮要靠后来波束宽度压缩到0.9度的MK132 I' C2 B8 w4 y" }% {7 t9 z& x# I
% |+ R5 x) y0 c: [/ v. ^
不过英国佬这么厉害
那么在战争后期为什么也要把274的波束宽度压缩到2度？

作者: oldcat 时间: 2008-10-8 20:48

原帖由 Surcouf 于 2008-10-8 20:29 发表
, z2 V- \' t$ z! G. k" m1 r关于雷达的作用，你可以对比同一战斗中的沙恩霍斯特号。
2 H) h. n* J3 G* B3 F0 x# _沙舰的FuMo23一出故障，整个就瞎掉，目标都找不到。可见德舰也是要依仗雷达的。

您不知道德国人的雷达就安装在那个一体化的测距机室的外面么？% a o- z/ H& P0 O0 P

按照惯常的说法: ^2 I' d f: L# {
这个部位中弹了不能工作中

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 07:58

别的我不想说
1. Type 284乃是Fire control radar,你不认它它也是火控雷达
2.北角海战的Duke of York用的也是284,你要说它是全靠光学仪器实现20000码左右命中的(就是打得沙舰减速那发,需要注意的是此战的海况和能见度比那次好,打了一票照明弹出去,光学与雷达配合指挥火控),那研发火控雷达也就没有必要了
3.被命中的是格舰,沙的雷达是自己坏了,和光学仪器有关系?你真爱开玩笑
4.英国的光学测距仪的基线长度可远不如德日法等国的新式战舰啊,按你说法这些家伙夜战得是相当能了,结果?雷达被各国研究者公认是夜战最重要的设备,您老人家一开口就全是测距仪的功劳了,雾岛比睿在那哭呢.$ x; ^" w$ l! t% @% F; D
4 T, a4 p& B. W% B, r- @5 Y
[ 本帖最后由 Surcouf 于 2008-10-9 08:46 编辑 ]

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 08:05

原来mk8只有有限的火控能力啊
怎样解释苏里高一战中装备mk8的战舰都能发现目标并命中,而装备mk3的只有一个马里兰能有效射击?难道美国人也靠光学仪器?
这言论也忒能了

别人都当火控雷达使用并取得效果了,你硬要说什么不是,这是跟谁过不去啊?

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 08:27

在这里看了一圈,发现几个问题
1.某些同志有为反哈德而反德的情绪,在没有仔细查证的情况下就否定别人,动辄打成yy,这本质上与yy实在没什么分别
2.国内资料错误多不假,但在没有认真查证的情况下拿着一点只言片语的洋文来否定中文资料,实在不是什么好习惯6 S6 r( H8 V! s0 c* Y
3.什么是学术?难道我们查点外国二手资料看看就叫学术?把这东西当饭吃?写东西发到历史学术刊物上?退一万步说,你拿得到双方第一手档案?你能自己判断下结论吗?还是吃别人消化过的的二手货?至少我们大多数都是玩票的,还是老实点好
而举着"学术"的大棒来打压别人,哪怕是小白,也是很不合适的: H T3 `' P$ h0 G

除此外,微言大大的贴子等等还是很好的

作者: hyyy 时间: 2008-10-9 11:09

楼上的,这里没有啥反独,更不许哈独,我看你说话这口气还挺狂的,什么叫老实点,你要是来讨论的,咱们欢迎,要是来踢馆的,对不起,爱去哪玩去哪玩.别跑来评论BIKU...........这里不热闹,也没啥意思.- y1 L' s5 o% O6 M. N

[ 本帖最后由 hyyy 于 2008-10-9 11:49 编辑 ]

作者: hyyy 时间: 2008-10-9 11:11

只言片语的英文资料,真可以,你那个就不是只言片语的中文资料,在同样的情况下,确实E文资料更可靠一些,当然不愿意看没关系嘛,不过你怎么知道我没有考证.那一大段E文你仔细看了没有,你就那么相信斯卡帕湾上写的东西.

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 11:52

我是个玩票的,不是什么搞"学术"的

我相信什么?笑,我是最不信中文资料的,所以会去看洋文 o& Q' J6 P5 h/ o# L) l
那个什么地方我不知道,只是我手里的英文资料是这么说的

作者: oldcat 时间: 2008-10-9 12:03

原帖由 Surcouf 于 2008-10-9 08:05 发表 6 ~! ?. k5 z( \' f& }. n3 O1 I/ T
原来mk8只有有限的火控能力啊- y x" U. h8 y% d8 k7 I9 z/ F0 Q
怎样解释苏里高一战中装备mk8的战舰都能发现目标并命中,而装备mk3的只有一个马里兰能有效射击?难道美国人也靠光学仪器?
1 k( W8 x9 h1 R0 i这言论也忒能了
) u% }9 P2 D) _$ G: x5 g/ r$ H; f2 P6 a
别人都当火控雷达使用并取得效果了,你硬要说 ...

请看清楚
我说的是MK8和MK13

作者: oldcat 时间: 2008-10-9 12:07

原帖由 Surcouf 于 2008-10-9 07:58 发表 8 T9 Y& |: t2 F- z; Z
别的我不想说/ Q$ b% w! m- n, e& ^" |
1. Type 284乃是Fire control radar,你不认它它也是火控雷达
& i2 |: u4 v8 r0 ?' y& J# X$ L2.北角海战的Duke of York用的也是284,你要说它是全靠光学仪器实现20000码左右命中的(就是打得沙舰减速那发,需要注意的是此战的海况和能见 ...

# |; J7 Z/ L6 O
! f8 a, ?2 w6 ]/ i5 K

麻烦自己去看

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 12:16

真是搞笑啊，现在你要做的事是举证284不是火控雷达或者在两次作战中284没起作用，是你所说的靠测距仪完成射控的。关于这一点，我可不需要你去翻哪本书，Google一下就可以了。

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 12:18

原帖由 oldcat 于 2008-10-9 12:03 发表
- c8 S* v" S+ P- _' \2 f8 ^1 ? A; T: C
u9 s" O% h n% R5 d
请看清楚/ I5 w% H* j4 T, D
我说的是MK8和MK13

( O; w$ {3 y9 w( q( N- B
MK13具有完全射控能力，不错1 i- I* ]! x4 c4 _* h7 T4 E9 Z
可是，这又如何说明MK8不具备完全射控能力？: M, G$ U9 X; P" b9 s
我举的苏里高的例子可以作为MK8能够指挥射控的反例吗？

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 12:21

查证了一下，发现我说19000码第一次开火也是不对，11000码一说可算完全正确

把全文贴一下( f! @% w* S$ W' ]

During the German invasion of Norway, the battlecruisers Gneisenau and Scharnhorst put to sea to patrol the area off Narvik, to cover the flank of the 10 destroyers sent to capture that Norwegian port. On April 9, 1940, the two were sailing in heavy weather near the Lofoten Islands. Gneisenau picked up a contact on her radar at 0430, and both ships went to battle stations. Around 0500 the navigator aboard Scharnhorst was attempting to take a navigational fix, when he reported that he had seen the flash of heavy gunfire in the mirror of his sextant. A minute later the scream of heavy incoming shells was heard on board Gneisenau: the radar contact was the battlecruiser HMS Renown and her nine escorting destroyers, also on patrol in the area. With her superior radar, she had taken the Gneisenau under fire from 11,800 yards, outside visual range in the low clouds and rainsqualls.
2 Y l0 q& ?- v! A# B( z$ X
The German twins returned fire three minutes later, and Renown shifted her fire to Scharnhorst at 0513. The three ships exchanged gunfire to no effect, exchanging salvoes sporadically until 0600, when the firing stopped. The weather was to rough for the destroyers to be effective. The German ships were under orders to avoid British warships, so they changed course frequently in an effort to disengage to the North. & I; Y" J0 {! A
2 `+ z3 z- g% a5 X0 r
At 0620, firing began again, with Renown once again targeting Gneisenau. Scharnhorst's radar malfunctioned, so her fire was completely ineffective, but within 5 minutes Gneisenau had scored two hits on Renown. One 11.1-inch shell passed through the main leg of Renown's foremast without exploding, while the second struck aft of 'Y' turret. This shell hit the starboard side hull plating between the upper and main decks, and passed through the ship above the steering gear and out the other side, also without exploding.

Renown answered almost immediately with two hits of her own. One of her 15-inch shells passed clean through Gneisenau's director tower without exploding, severing electrical and communication cables as it went. The debris caused by the passing shell killed one officer and five ratings, and destroyed the optical rangefinder for the forward 150mm turrets. Main battery fire control had to be shifted aft due to the loss of electrical power to the director tower. Renown's second shell struck Gneisenau's aft turret, knocking it out of action.

The Germans had had enough. Scharnhorst was blind, and Gneisenau had lost one third of her firepower. They ceased fire shortly after these hits, and the German twins raced northward at their best speed. It was feared that any further hits would slow one of the battlecruisers, leaving it open to torpedo attack from the British destroyers.
" i3 S* n- d% W f* u
As the German ships raced north, they began to outpace the British battlecruiser. But the heavy seas took their toll: green water over the bows damaged both German ships. Water entered the forward turrets of both ships, rendering them useless due to short circuits. Scharnhorst suffered a powerplant problem, and the starboard shaft had to be shut down. The two dropped down to 25 knots, but by then they were out of radar range and Renown was unable to locate them. The German ships turned west, and after spending several days in the Arctic Ocean to throw off any British attempts to intercept them, the battlecruisers returned to Wilhelmshaven for repairs and overhaul.

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 12:29

这篇文章与LZ的到底那篇是正确？

请看第三方，沙恩霍斯特级的专题网站的记述：http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/ ... harnweserubung.html9 L A$ ?8 U B. s0 B. j$ y8 t8 {1 R
" L/ @6 q8 ]4 y0 k; m7 }: r
At 0430 on 9 April the Gneisenau reported a radar contact, and both ships went to battle stations. About 0507 the enemy opened fire. At 0510 the main guns on the Scharnhorst responded the fire and at the same time the enemy was identified as a battlecruiser of the Renown Class.* X- M- J4 m+ M* {' l& A

In fact it was HMS Renown and she was accompanied by nine "H" class destroyers of the 2nd Destroyer Flotilla.

In the engagement with the Renown, the Scharnhorst's radar malfunctioned, and she could not track the target. She came under fire from the HMS Renown, but repeated course changes allowed her to escape undamaged. By 0715 the German battlecruisers had outdistanced their pursuers. However, the Scharnhorst's turret Anton was put out of action by heavy seas that cascaded over the bows and into the turret through the cartridge ejection scuttles, rangefinder gear, and the gun bloomers. The ammunition hoist motor was short-circuited by seawater. When the Scharnhorst increased speed to the maximum possible, the starboard turbine had to be stopped, which slowed the two ships to 25 knots.

可见，除了部分时间上极小的差别，两者说法是基本吻合的。谁到底是正确的？谁是YY的？谁是YY反而将YY的帽子扣到别人头上的？

请问了，这个叫学术？: [, i( b" S/ Q! f

[ 本帖最后由 Surcouf 于 2008-10-9 12:30 编辑 ]

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 12:37

这是英意海军在二战的首次主力舰交战，虽然战列舰交火有限，但是结果却是一边倒的+ W" E. M0 l& z( j
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
就在同一次海战中，不妨看看这个

Some debate is ongoing in Italy about the possibility of a hit by the Cesare on Warspite around the same time; this controversy, called "the blue smoke affair" is about a blue smoke seen rising from the Warspite by officers and lookouts aboard the Cesare. There was also an article by the Italian naval historian Enrico Cernuschi, who is considered a maverick in Italian naval and naval history circles, about the actual performance of Italian naval artillery. As of 2006 no definite conclusion on this is achieved.

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 12:41

不仔细还不知道，这材料真是漏洞百出
' S/ m# R' V/ p2 v' Q+ [4 J x8 N
At 15:59 two shells from Giulio Cesare fell very close to Warspite. Almost immediately after one of Warspite's 381 mm rounds hit the rear deck of Giulio Cesare, setting off the stored ammunition for one of her 37mm anti-aircraft guns. The fumes from the burning ammunition were sucked down into the engine room, which had to evacuate and shut down half of the boilers. Giulio Cesare's speed quickly fell off to 18 knots and Conte di Cavour took over. Giulio Cesare and Warspite were well over 24,000 metres (26,000 yards) apart at the time of the hit, setting the record for naval gunnery against a moving target that stands to this day.

作者: hyyy 时间: 2008-10-9 12:58

我发现楼上的越来越有BAIDU的风气了,和七爷倒是挺像的,就你那资料叫权威,其余的都是扯蛋,你凭啥说你那玩意一定正确,就因为是你手头有的,依你的逻辑,我手头的资料是这样的,+ |$ R% a0 b- D1 ~3 g. J& H
This battle occurred during the German invasion of Norway between the HMS Renown and the KM Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. The battle took place about 80 NM west of the Lofoten Islands. Sea state was full gale with very heavy seas. The battle opened at 0337 with the Renown having increased speed to 20 knots after spotting the two German ships. Renown was steaming west of the German's position giving her the advantage of being against the still dark sky while the German ships were silhouetted against the lightening eastern sky in morning nautical twilight. At 0405 the Renown opened fire on the Gneisenau whose crew was uncertain about the identity of the Renown and taking the Scharnhorst by surprise. ! z& P( W/ Q& e m; f/ e% C5 j
Gneisenau replied at 0411. Both sides turned onto roughly parallel courses. At 0417 the Renown scored her first hit, taking out Gneisenau's main gunnery control station. The Gneisenau turned away onto a north-easterly heading and switched to secondary fire control. Scharnhorst followed laying smoke in an attempt to screen Gneisenau until she could reestablish her fire control ability. Both German ships increased their speed to about 28 knots.
At 0417 the Renown scored her first hit, taking out Gneisenau's main gunnery control station.6 e; U3 }* T# W" h% W
看这句上面写清楚了,4点17分命中,所以你那是YY的,这不就是用你的逻辑来解决问题么.

作者: hyyy 时间: 2008-10-9 13:00

而且关于开火的时间点,是不是采用了同样的区时,你考证过么.............那篇所谓的第三方资料没有任何权威性可言,而且只是开火时间重合了,并没有提到开火距离,我前面已经说了,时区问题你考虑了么,如果两篇恰好使用同一时区时间,那么重合有什么好奇怪的,你的时间和我的时间正好相差约一个小时,这个问题暂且放开不谈,你前面说19000是双方乱射的,后面又说是11000才开火的,不过两边都承认,是德国人先发现了英国人,你有啥证据说明,德国人先发现了英国人,要清楚,德国人当时雷达技术不如英国先进,而且当时的战场环境是德国人那边已经天亮了,而英国人还在黑夜中.Renown was steaming west of the German's position giving her the advantage of being against the still dark sky while the German ships were silhouetted against the lightening eastern sky in morning nautical twilight,两者都对德国人不利,德国人咋就先发现了,不要和我说德国水兵大能.从这点上看我的资料上说是英国人先发现了德国人,而且是打出了奇袭,好像更有道理些,在英国人准备开火时,德国人还没摸清英国人方位呢.0 d- E. j; z" t+ t
4 p8 {/ q# h$ O/ F/ Z, ~
[ 本帖最后由 hyyy 于 2008-10-9 13:12 编辑 ]

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 13:02

越来越搞笑了呵  G; \' Y$ {+ S; Q5 z9 a2 _  P
. `/ [2 N: l6 n
对不起啊，我贴了2份，你只有1份
5 t6 W3 _. ?7 q) j
第一份： Around 0500 the navigator aboard Scharnhorst was attempting to take a navigational fix, when he reported that he had seen the flash of heavy gunfire in the mirror of his sextant. / j+ d% Y0 ~* F; D; L6 f% b3 E
  y; o7 a% y' e, P
第二份：About 0507 the enemy opened fire. At 0510 the main guns on the Scharnhorst responded the fire and at the same time the enemy was identified as a battlecruiser of the Renown Class.$ d# z% r" D" c7 N8 k. j6 x2 d  x7 [
: L% w$ _9 _6 }$ |3 C. n
炮还没开始打，就取得命中了，英国人真是不得了

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 13:04

原帖由 hyyy 于 2008-10-9 13:00 发表
. p/ y! p+ ^6 }! e0 _而且关于开火的时间点,是不是采用了同样的区时,你考证过么.............

' Q: {1 W3 u! [" ^4 f: @
柏林时间早伦敦时间一小时
你的资料：The battle opened at 0337 with the Renown having increased speed to 20 knots after spotting the two German ships.
无论柏林时间伦敦时间都不吻合，对不起啊您~

作者: hyyy 时间: 2008-10-9 13:17

你贴了两份就了不起啊,我自己也写一份贴上,也算两份不,真搞笑,BAIDU的研究人员就靠这个啊,怪不得到处被批,还是那句话,你那资料上写几点就是几点开战的啊,另外请看清楚,如果英文不好的话,我给你翻译下The battle opened at 0337 with the Renown having increased speed to 20 knots after spotting the two German ships.这话是说,战斗的起始时间是3点37分,以 Renown 发现目标并开始加速为起算点,什么地方说了开火了,这是以接敌为战斗起算点的说法,和开火有什么关系,战斗一定要以开火为起算啊,看清楚,我这里所说的开火时间是4点5分 At 19,000 yards Renown turned to a new course to expose her full broadside. At 0405 the Renown opened fire on the Gneisenau

作者: luckpanzer 时间: 2008-10-9 13:17

各位，你们都是个中高人，关注的也应该是话题本身，别伤了和气。& u$ C/ _3 W: e( L. S2 i& Q$ k
我倒是大家能把各自的资料分享一下，也让我能多学学东西哈。$ q' A* B P# ^, k, c
链接、书名、关键词啥的都好。

作者: oldcat 时间: 2008-10-9 13:19

原帖由 Surcouf 于 2008-10-9 12:16 发表 1 F" m& j5 W9 C3 n3 p5 @
真是搞笑啊，现在你要做的事是举证284不是火控雷达或者在两次作战中284没起作用，是你所说的靠测距仪完成射控的。关于这一点，我可不需要你去翻哪本书，Google一下就可以了。

9 \1 T2 H- h3 p. F7 D/ K

因为射击不光是要测距
更重要的是还要“测角”

射击方位不对
你就是距离正确又能打到什么鸟？

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 13:27

原帖由 hyyy 于 2008-10-9 13:00 发表 + Y) T' O; u: M4 u. \
而且关于开火的时间点,是不是采用了同样的区时,你考证过么.............那篇所谓的第三方资料没有任何权威性可言,而且只是开火时间重合了,并没有提到开火距离,我前面已经说了,时区问题你考虑了么,如果两篇恰好使用同 ...

6 b: Y3 y# I% h1 u
1-沙恩霍斯特级专题网站的陈述没有任何权威性可言。那你的资料呢？( q6 p* ?- H3 H% l: q; [3 J
2-“只是开火时间重合了，并没有提到开火距离” 对不起，证实一个资料的真实性只需要一处不符合就可以证伪。4 O, t' `+ ?" N5 C5 W& H6 U- g9 u
3-看资料要仔细，这两篇文章只说4:30是德国人发现英国人，什么时候说了“德国人先发现了英国人”？
你所说的国内YY不就是这样出来的吗？0 v+ o& J2 @( c8 Y8 @& I" i
4-这次交战的海况是极为糟糕的，能见度是很差的，还是阴雨天气。加上之前的怀疑，我认为这里瞎扯的可能性极大。

作者: hyyy 时间: 2008-10-9 13:28

惊动LUCK版主了,真不好意思
那我就把问题的分歧列出来,大家一起来看8 Q! K* G1 j8 X0 ?$ t3 G% X1 Y
第一,究竟是谁先发现了谁,按某人的话说是德国人先敌发现的.理由,好像没给出来6 j6 w4 \' j8 a
At 0430 on 9 April the Gneisenau reported a radar contact, and both ships went to battle stations. About 0507 the enemy opened fire.
我的说法,英国人先发现并且准备开火时,德国人还不知道英国人的方位,英国人打出了奇袭理由如下:1,英国人雷达技术先进,2,当时的气象条件和时间条件明显有利英国,英国这边天是黑的,德国那边是亮的.* ?/ ^( P# Q" x( u5 ~ H8 x# b
The battle opened at 0337 with the Renown having increased speed to 20 knots after spotting the two German ships. Renown was steaming west of the German's position giving her the advantage of being against the still dark sky while the German ships were silhouetted against the lightening eastern sky in morning nautical twilight. At 0405 the Renown opened fire on the Gneisenau whose crew was uncertain about the identity of the Renown and taking the Scharnhorst by surprise. 4 X% r3 i* Q* L, m: o* A
第二,究竟是多少距离开的炮,某人说11000码,我的意见19000码
第三,什么时候取得的命中弹) a& k& M) J+ V6 H8 F; N1 `
第四,时间上的问题,实际上,时间如果从时区的角度考虑,是可以对上的.刚还差一个小时左右.而且我发现了一个很有意思的问题,按某人的话说,At 0430 on 9 April the Gneisenau reported a radar contact,是德国人先发现的,而我的观点说The battle opened at 0337 with the Renown having increased speed to 20 knots after spotting the two German ships.,换算成等效时间的话,正好差7分钟,嘿嘿,某人来证明下,这篇战史记载究竟是如何能准确到这种地步,另外把我前面的雷达和时间问题解决.

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 13:29

原帖由 oldcat 于 2008-10-9 13:19 发表 ' F% Z4 {' q8 E+ |# |  H4 i1 O
6 i4 C* n4 J8 d- a  t

: S; D7 {3 h9 X% J! k& g. H" _因为射击不光是要测距
7 F' y  ^9 z" A- f, x8 x  `更重要的是还要“测角”1 L- m6 X# }7 `' s
( S& ]) c4 [6 c
射击方位不对
! B' V! }1 }: I4 B5 S- d9 g3 j你就是距离正确又能打到什么鸟？

是是是，我都知道这些，初期雷达对方位的测算是很不精确的。
但是现在的问题是，你要推翻284是一种火控雷达的结论。
MK3对方位的测算也不很准确，可是雾岛是被什么干掉的？

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 13:30

原帖由 hyyy 于 2008-10-9 13:17 发表
$ \1 I4 k1 C1 L7 E4 |你贴了两份就了不起啊,我自己也写一份贴上,也算两份不,真搞笑,BAIDU的研究人员就靠这个啊,怪不得到处被批,还是那句话,你那资料上写几点就是几点开战的啊,另外请看清楚,如果英文不好的话,我给你翻译下The battle open ...

你要证明的是你资料的有效性，至少拿出另一个与你说法相符合的，确保作者不是乱YY。

作者: hyyy 时间: 2008-10-9 13:31

先在又是开火时间重合了,那好啊,时间问题解决了,因为我的资料和你的资料关于距离记载不一样,所以,证明我的资料错误,你的资料正确.这个逻辑真是强大的可以啊.

作者: oldcat 时间: 2008-10-9 13:31

原帖由 Surcouf 于 2008-10-9 12:18 发表 5 b6 L5 [; x& M: r" }/ C
1 A* l% n5 }+ f A; d8 H0 y
MK13具有完全射控能力，不错
& a" U) |- b4 T% \; I0 I可是，这又如何说明MK8不具备完全射控能力？
" n5 D# E" U' Y+ }4 L8 l# o我举的苏里高的例子可以作为MK8能够指挥射控的反例吗？

t5 V! ?9 `# b, s

您看的懂“MK8不具备完全射控能力”是什么意思吗？

MK8的精度不足以在主炮全射程上引导火炮射击
可不见得就是“MK8不能引导火炮射击”

作者: oldcat 时间: 2008-10-9 13:32

原帖由 Surcouf 于 2008-10-9 13:29 发表
% W1 ]* r- p. I$ r c1 M) n! T, f# V* d, Y! [; J" i7 X
是是是，我都知道这些，初期雷达对方位的测算是很不精确的。: o+ @; v! ] h4 Z
但是现在的问题是，你要推翻284是一种火控雷达的结论。+ H; j/ r4 Y5 h' z# Y
MK3对方位的测算也不很准确，可是雾岛是被什么干掉的？

: f9 @- a' ~) ^2 [; s3 e
华盛顿装的是MK3吗？

作者: oldcat 时间: 2008-10-9 13:35

多说一点: q6 R$ A% O. p
沙恩霍斯特就没有安装过FUMO23雷达

39年9月安装的是FUMO22
41年11月（？）安装FUMO27

作者: hyyy 时间: 2008-10-9 13:36

是么,你贴出第二份所谓的权威资料了么,就算你那啥XX网站上记载的是真理,可是我看了三次,都没发现上面有写11000开战啊,怎么就成了一致了,你和我一样,还是空对空啊,你啥XX网,换算一下,时间也和我的一致,而且几乎是分秒不差.

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 13:38

拜服一个，声望在19000码准备开火，与在11000码开火有任何矛盾没有？

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 13:39

原帖由 oldcat 于 2008-10-9 13:35 发表 , M& ? P" N) h" U
多说一点
3 ~$ @1 f2 S4 e' D0 L0 ]3 Q4 O沙恩霍斯特就没有安装过FUMO23雷达
: |9 t g* \2 g; b1 j4 V- i9 i! c3 f/ X$ C5 d
39年9月安装的是FUMO22
; G" k( P! `) k9 G% }0 \" O0 ?5 s41年11月（？）安装FUMO27

细末的东西你可以说，因为我是随手乱写的
你要证明的是，284不是火控雷达

作者: hyyy 时间: 2008-10-9 13:44

现在又成了声望在19000码准备开火,你这猜测的功夫还真了得.

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 13:45

原帖由 oldcat 于 2008-10-9 13:32 发表 + E& @6 j% T; S' k# }% b- q

0 A. F. _4 ? k/ i, B$ T% b7 Y+ ?. R$ y: Z
华盛顿装的是MK3吗？

7 Y+ A& u& t; }. n6 I
具体不清楚
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/radar-2.htm" m& z& H$ O4 n: N, Y+ ~/ o/ x
总之不是MK8

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 13:46

原帖由 hyyy 于 2008-10-9 13:44 发表 1 |6 Y% X; ^' c- G$ j1 c. J
现在又成了声望在19000码准备开火,你这猜测的功夫还真了得.

3 a9 Y% j/ v$ e! B; U
笑，19000码只是一个转向，又关开火什么事？
转向=开火，你才了得呢

作者: hyyy 时间: 2008-10-9 13:52

转向开始的时间你有资料么,还有德国人的航向和航速,你凭什么说明从转向到开火之间两舰缩短了8000................你有计算过么,就凭你文章中说的,11000的距离上命中了

作者: hyyy 时间: 2008-10-9 13:54

而且,现在怎么不提还没战斗就开火啦,还有前面不是一直叫着19000开火是扯蛋,11000才是正确的么

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 14:04

笑,不知道是谁叫唤着11000是yy? z: `$ w8 o6 i! C$ ~$ d
怎么不叫唤了?" X/ F8 H0 |0 ]
怎么证明不是11000不是我的事,而是你如何证明声望转向距离就等于开火距离啊

作者: kevin_hx 时间: 2008-10-9 14:07

讨论问题可以啊~~~~但是各位大大能不能心平气和点撒3 Q7 D) f4 H. ^$ M3 d
不要互相挖苦啊~~~~~~
我们学习的是知识，不是情绪。。。。。8 a% }" t4 j3 x& Y+ Z

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 14:08

我要证明的是2点
1.11000码开火不是yy,是有资料证明的9 D3 W6 `; @1 t3 Y6 _; i# j% N
2.19000码开火的说法是yy,哪怕是你的资料里作者也没有这种暗示! }; f' _1 @, D9 U2 g
& R$ h6 E: Q5 S
从转向到开火,某尽然能等同,请问这叫学术?

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 14:12

我的基本判断8 C$ c" h$ O4 \% ]' F" Q4 \ q
1.我的资料没有问题,你硬要说有也随便.而这种记载出自德方纪录.
2.你的资料应该也没有问题,出自英方纪录.* \& {+ o3 E/ y1 F
3.有问题的是你的根据资料引申,猜测,或说yy出来的观点,比如转向距离等于开火距离

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 14:20

你要找事从这两点来,其他的随便你们扯

作者: Surcouf 时间: 2008-10-9 14:48

不想扯了,最后总结一下
1.我的错误在于开始没看清楚Lz提出的资料,从而找错了证明论断的方式
2.我的观点到目前仍然没有任何问题,不管是评价还是提出的论点
! g9 D/ b! P- P) P% G! v: a
不想再扯,走也~

作者: oldcat 时间: 2008-10-9 16:57

原帖由 Surcouf 于 2008-10-9 13:45 发表
' Q/ p) X' F, {* j, @. ?/ a# L! U5 I0 o0 ]" Y# M6 i) Z
具体不清楚
9 k2 l6 | }- n3 ]http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/radar-2.htm' V+ _! d) U7 n: U Q! |
总之不是MK8

8 F( S# b# ]! J2 j- T, `

华盛顿的战斗报告说得可是MK8

作者: hyyy 时间: 2008-10-9 17:19

1.我的资料没有问题,你硬要说有也随便.而这种记载出自德方纪录.
果然,这才是根源,根源啊~~~~~~自己证明了,还说没YY,自己都不能拿出具体证据说明的东西却冠以绝对正确,完全正确,而其余的都是YY,扯蛋,来源嘛只是一个自以为权威无比的德方记录,而且还是不知道真假的陈述性记录,只要是德国人的都是对的." S2 J6 a& {. K r' R
话难听吧,不过道理我也说明白了,爱哪玩哪玩去.

欢迎光临燃烧的岛群军史学习论坛 (http://bikooo.com/)